maybe it was:'hey, those eastern orthodox weren't as dodgy as we thought, look, they are upholding orthodox teaching'

seriously, though, many OO Christians today don't know much about the Catholic / EO schism. i have had to explain it to a few african friends. it all happened so long ago and so far away.the general consensus is 'the EO are like us and the catholics are nearly like us'.

In light of the fact that the filioque controversy was primarily an East-West issue originating after the Chalcedonian schism, it is unlikely that too many historical OO Patriarchs or others would have written about it. I don't know of any myself, though certainly people on both sides of the issue have pointed to saints of our communion (those considered saints of their communions, too) as evidence for the correctness of their position, e.g., St. Cyril of Alexandria.

What was the reaction of OOs when they first heard of the Filioque controversy? Was there any?

This is an understudied topic, but from what I can understand, for the most part, it was rejected when it was brought up, although this was not as strongly expressed until the formation of the Coptic Catholic Church in the 18th century. At times before then, it seemed that a few Coptic patriarchs flirted with the possibility of accepting the Filioque under pretense of continuing rejection of Chalcedon, but this would be met with much resistance by Coptic monks and bishops.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I recall reading about a local council the Armenians had in the middle ages that was a reaction against the union with Rome that happened in Cilicia. During that council, the Filioque was rejected. I don't have a link to anything on it, though. If I find something, I'll link it.

It was discussed at the Third Council of Sis, but it seems they could not reach a decision at the council, and it was dealt with and rejected afterwards.:

Quote

The Third Council of Sis (1251)

The Third Council of Sis was devoted to the discussion of the teaching of the theological formula of Filioque, which had been presented by the Pope of Rome who requested that the theory be accepted. The Council did not come to a final answer and the Pope’s suggestion was addressed to the Oriental Archimandrites for discussion. The Oriental Archimandrites finally renounced and never adopted the formula.

King Hethoum asked the Catholicos to reply to the Pope’s message. Though the Catholicos respected the Roman See, he could not admit the conditions proposed by the Pope. Thus he sent King Hethoum a message, consisting of 15 points, in which he refused to accept the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church and asked the king not to trust the West. The Roman See, receiving this answer, reduced her original conditions in the letter written in 1250 and offered to admit only the Filioque that the Holy Spirit emanates not only from God the Father, but also from the Son. This was the very question which separated the Byzantine and Latin Churches in 1054.

Catholicos Constantine convened the third Council of Sis to respond to this proposal. Not being able to arrive at a final decision, the Council sought the opinion of the Church leaders in Eastern Armenia. This was a new problem for the Armenian Church and naturally there were different opinions. Thus it was difficult to arrive at a decision.

i have discussed atonement with coptic theologians such as abba seraphim, father peter and my Godfather (who is not famous on this forum) and they point out that atonement is about 2 aspects, the judgement aspect (overemphasised by some protestants) and the deification aspect (which is explained on page 4 of the document linked to above).

it is only by including both aspects that we can have a balanced view of atonement.what we orthodox Christians don't believe is that atonement is about fixing an angry God with a sacrifice. if you read the document, it is not saying that either.

i have discussed atonement with coptic theologians such as abba seraphim, father peter and my Godfather (who is not famous on this forum) and they point out that atonement is about 2 aspects, the judgement aspect (overemphasised by some protestants) and the deification aspect (which is explained on page 4 of the document linked to above).

it is only by including both aspects that we can have a balanced view of atonement.what we orthodox Christians don't believe is that atonement is about fixing an angry God with a sacrifice. if you read the document, it is not saying that either.

I agree. I think it's important to realize that some Byzantine polemics against atonement crosses an unnecessary line by ignoring it altogether completely. At the same time, I personally believe we as a Coptic Church need to reevaluate our Coptic teachings, as we seemed to have relied on 18th and 19th century famous catechetical teachings, and not on the ancient pre and post Chalcedonian OO fathers, which we are slowly rediscovering.

In this document, I am uneasy of the use of the unlimited sin aspect of teaching atonement, as it is a teaching that has no patristic basis as far as I have seen. One might philosophically justify it, or terribly interpret it in a blasphemous manner. And I hope this can be changed or at least addressed soon, or just destroy any mention of unlimited atonement for unlimited sin, because this has the propensity to lose the essential purpose and nature of our salvation.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

How about the atonement ? Is there any OO Church teaching satisfaction atonement or Penal Substitution?

The Copts seem to be fond of that one.

Unfortunately, there has been a tendency in the modern teaching of the Coptic Church to overlook the patristic tradition regarding atonement and provide a more scholastic view. Some priests I know are influenced by the Anselmian theory and teach it as the valid theory of atonement. But this is changing now, many Copts (especially laymen) are rediscovering the treasures of the Church Fathers. This movement is getting stronger day after day, one can find more Arabic resources providing sound and Orthodox doctrinal and theological teachings. The only thing left for the church is to adopt these movements, and spread the awareness of such treasures among the faithful.

.... At the same time, I personally believe we as a Coptic Church need to reevaluate our Coptic teachings, as we seemed to have relied on 18th and 19th century famous catechetical teachings, and not on the ancient pre and post Chalcedonian OO fathers, which we are slowly rediscovering.

In this document, I am uneasy of the use of the unlimited sin aspect of teaching atonement, as it is a teaching that has no patristic basis as far as I have seen. One might philosophically justify it, or terribly interpret it in a blasphemous manner. And I hope this can be changed or at least addressed soon, or just destroy any mention of unlimited atonement for unlimited sin, because this has the propensity to lose the essential purpose and nature of our salvation.

That sounds pretty similar to present Eastern Orthodoxy. Is that movement for more patristic teaching anyhow influenced by EOs or have Copts invented the similar idea of ad fontes themselves?

That's true, I think. The Eastern Orthodox were in the same situation from the 16th to the 19th-20th century.

And now we have went from the ditch to the duck pond.

How so?

See any thread on Original Sin, Theotokos vs. Mother of God etc. I wouldn't be that suprised if there is some Orthodox Christian somewhere who denied the existence of God just because "existence", "of" and "God" are too Latin.

Logged

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.Leviticus 19:34

See any thread on Original Sin, Theotokos vs. Mother of God etc. I wouldn't be that suprised if there is some Orthodox Christian somewhere who denied the existence of God just because "existence", "of" and "God" are too Latin.

See any thread on Original Sin, Theotokos vs. Mother of God etc. I wouldn't be that suprised if there is some Orthodox Christian somewhere who denied the existence of God just because "existence", "of" and "God" are too Latin.

Ah yes, I agree with that. The hate of anything Latin is quite silly.

I agree, but I'm not sure I'd put the blame for that at an attempt to get back to the Fathers. People just generally seem to have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water whenever they try to clean things up. Maybe because many people find it easier to see everything in black and white rather than shades of grey.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

See any thread on Original Sin, Theotokos vs. Mother of God etc. I wouldn't be that suprised if there is some Orthodox Christian somewhere who denied the existence of God just because "existence", "of" and "God" are too Latin.

Ah yes, I agree with that. The hate of anything Latin is quite silly.

I agree, but I'm not sure I'd put the blame for that at an attempt to get back to the Fathers. People just generally seem to have a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water whenever they try to clean things up. Maybe because many people find it easier to see everything in black and white rather than shades of grey.

James

very true!

I hope we don't make that mistake either. And I think we won't, since the persons who propagated those beliefs are highly respected people.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

That sounds pretty similar to present Eastern Orthodoxy. Is that movement for more patristic teaching anyhow influenced by EOs or have Copts invented the similar idea of ad fontes themselves?

The situation as I see it is two fold:

There are those who translate the writings of the Church Fathers directly from their original Greek, the most prominent body doing this is the Cairo Patristic Center. Then, there are those who have been reading secondary sources in English and French, I believe many of them are influenced by the EO movement specially the one championed by the Russian emigre society in France. Their books are becoming more accessible in English, and in some cases in Arabic translations. This is more common among the younger generation who don't have a formal degree in theology or patristics. During my last visit to Wadi El-Natron Scetis, I've found some writings of Fr. Alexander Schmemann translated into Arabic by a Coptic monk!

I want to add that I've always found that the theories of atonement the Byzantine churches have attacked are not necessarily Latin or Roman Catholic, or at least not fully endorsed by the Church of Rome. In fact, if one uses their Catechism as the official representation of Roman Catholic theology, I actually find nothing wrong with their soteriology. They make no mention of the unlimited sin that both Anselm and Aquinas taught. Rather, I see them more in Calvinistic sources that offer us a God so disconnected from as well as so irate with creation to such an extent, it is actually no different than the Islamic concept of God, not to mention the limitations of such a God, in which He is FORCED to react to iniquity in such a close-minded manner, rather than present to us a God that does not need to react to anything creation does.

A Panentheistic system does not allow for a legalistic system that goes out of hand like Calvinism. Rather, I think a legalistic system can be complimentary to a deification/sanctification system in a more allegorical sense, as has been present among the ancient Church fathers, even the Eastern ones. If this is ignored, in my opinion, this is crossing the line. I think for instance, St. Augustine needs to be given another look, and allowed to be interpreted with the best of intentions, and not through the lens of Calvin, as has been done not just by these Protestants, but unfortunately also by the likes of Fr. John Romanides (who I greatly respect and admire) and his followers.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 04:24:03 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.